AoS 3 - Fyreslayers Discussion

[Doko]

2 hours ago, Lord Krungharr said:

you can't dump wounds onto them like a Runefather can to HGBs

nop is in fact better the black guards than hgb bodyguard rule.

hgb rules:

runefather get a wound and with 4+ the wound is negated and hgb get 1 wound done

 

sorceres(ward 4 due to black guard) get a wound and with a 4+ the wound is negated and nobody get a wound.

 

again diferent books,but black guards for 20 less points have same damage and tankines than hgb,more move,better charge,better bodyguard rule etc

[Azamar]

1 hour ago, Doko said:

nop is in fact better the black guards than hgb bodyguard rule.

hgb rules:

runefather get a wound and with 4+ the wound is negated and hgb get 1 wound done

 

 

I’m sorry but this is flat out wrong. It’s a 3+ and the hearthguard *still get their ward* (it’s the only ability in the game that allows this). 

the successful saves not transferring onto the black guard is nice, but as keeping the hero alive is so critical to these units, I’ll take the 3+ over the 4+ any day thank you. 

It’s harder to kill a Runeson with hearthguard nearby than it is to kill a sorceress with black guard nearby, and even more difficult to kill a runefather. 
And made even worse due you opponent once you start throwing rally from a battlesmith around, or heroic recovery on the hero. Plus if, somehow, your opponent managed to kill that runefather whilst hearthguard are still alive, any other hero in your army (and you should have plenty) can keep that 4+ ward active for the survivors. 
 

 

[Doko]

are you sure about the ward of hbg? in my club and evey online game that i see they say that you cant use the ward of hgb with the bodyguard.

because the fyreslayer book is older than the faq that state that wounds made by bodyguards rule cant be saved by war and so the faq cancel our book.

you can tell me where say that our hgb ward can be used even if the faq state that no? i would like know it to show it to the people that argue that faq goes before our rules because it is more new

[Azamar]

1 hour ago, Doko said:

are you sure about the ward of hbg? in my club and evey online game that i see they say that you cant use the ward of hgb with the bodyguard.

because the fyreslayer book is older than the faq that state that wounds made by bodyguards rule cant be saved by war and so the faq cancel our book.

you can tell me where say that our hgb ward can be used even if the faq state that no? i would like know it to show it to the people that argue that faq goes before our rules because it is more new

Ability rules (1.6) in the side bar. “If the effect of an ability contradicts a core rule, then the effect takes precedence”

Age of the faq doesn’t matter, as it’s still an faq of the core rules. It would only change if they took the line about ward saves out of the runefather/son warscrolls.

So in this case the effect specifically  states the unit can still use their ward, which overrides the core rules saying they can’t.

Edit- I’ve just realised where this confusion is coming from- I looked back and realised the core rules faq you’re referring to specifically mentions sworn protectors in battletome fyreslayers. That’s the warscroll ability from auric hearthguard from the 2nd edition battletome. 
The ability for runefathers and sons is called royal retinue, for reference. 
so you can also prove to your opponents that that particular faq question predates the current fyreslayer battletome 

Edited August 20, 2023 by Azamar

[Doko]

i posted in rules to asking,the faq that my club says that cancel ward is this.

Edited August 20, 2023 by Doko

[Azamar]

Ok- so I’m usually quite happy to back down if the consensus is I’m wrong. But I’m absolutely going to die on this hill in this case and here’s why:

(with apologies, I have a few screenshots of bits of the pdfs I’m referring to but I can’t work out how to paste them in the text, so they’ll all be at the end)

 

Firstly let’s make clear what an FAQ (or designers commentary as they now call it) is. It is answers to questions to complement the core rules. It is not a balance change, or meant to rewrite or correct core rules- that’s what the errata’s are for- those only start later in the pdf. 

 

Secondary, the age of the designers commentary doesn’t matter, the magenta bits are just to help people see what has changed. For some reason when I load the faq page I’m getting old versions of the documents, but it means I can show what the faq looked like prior to the one you just posted. It is identical wording, they just removed the reference to outdated battletomes. The question predates our current battletome, but it wouldn’t matter if it didn’t as the designers commentary is solely there to explain how the *core* rules work.

 

So as it currently stands, the core rules say you cannot take a ward roll for hearthguard, but the royal retinue ability says that you can. There’s a clash so how is that resolved? The rule in 1.61 the ability over-rides the core rules. So roll those wards. 
some bodyguard units (like stormcast praetors) don’t mention whether a ward roll can be taken- that’s why the faq is needed. 

 

Would it matter if this appeared in the core rules errata instead of the designers commentary? Simply, no. Because the errata updates the core rules. The new update would say wards can’t be taken, royal retinue would still say it can and we’d be back round to 1.6. 

 

The only way this could change is if the royal retinue ability was changed in a fyreslayer errata, or if the core rules errata  changed to say this was an exception to rule 1.6 (there’s precedent as they do this in the errata regarding fighting more than twice in one phase.).

 

 

To be convinced otherwise then I’ll need to see:

 

1. *where* it says that core FAQs/designer commentary override core rules (they are clarifications) or why the order they were added in relation to battletomes matters. (Again, this is separate from erratas, which do replace the text of rules from the book they’re for and can change how a rule works)

 

2. Why, if the rule about wards is an exception to 1.6, does it not say it is an exception? (Compared to the 1.6.5 errata about fighting twice)

3. how, on a baseline level, this is any different from any other ability that breaks the core rules (such as issuing multiple commands, or running and charging and so on.)

[Doko]

i get your point,but im not a international player,and my club continue saying that this faq cancel our ward even after show the rule 1,6

i can try the point in the rules post, stating that the faq is only for wounds negated and our retinue are wounds relocated, but is semantic and i dont think they gonna change their opinion.

its not a big problem because my fyresalyers are getting dust untill next book,and i guess next book gonna clarify this better(in this generals handbook isnt fun fyreslayers and i preffer play my vampires or new citys)

[Azamar]

22 minutes ago, Doko said:

i get your point,but im not a international player,and my club continue saying that this faq cancel our ward even after show the rule 1,6

i can try the point in the rules post, stating that the faq is only for wounds negated and our retinue are wounds relocated, but is semantic and i dont think they gonna change their opinion.

its not a big problem because my fyresalyers are getting dust untill next book,and i guess next book gonna clarify this better(in this generals handbook isnt fun fyreslayers and i preffer play my vampires or new citys)

Fair enough- it seems absolutely bonkers to me that’s it’s even in question- how it works is there in black and white and rule on the warscroll, and 1.6 explains exactly how it should work. I’m sorry your opponents aren’t being reasonable- maybe you shouldn’t let them run and charge or issue the same command twice if they think 1.6 isn’t important? I wouldn’t bother about the negated vs wards as that is just the same thing- whole point is, if that was meant to be an exception to 1.6 it would say outright that it was (like the fight twice errata). 
 

 

[Lord Krungharr]

Not sure if this is what the discussion is about (foggy with a headache right now)....

In terms of targeting the HGBs, after my Stank Commander prays to erase their ward save, I think they just wouldn't get their ward save if the prayer is successful.  If my Stank Commander prays to erase the ward of the HGBs successfully, then targets the Runefather, I think he still dumps his wounds onto the HGBs and they would not get their ward save.

[Azamar]

13 minutes ago, Lord Krungharr said:

Not sure if this is what the discussion is about (foggy with a headache right now)....

In terms of targeting the HGBs, after my Stank Commander prays to erase their ward save, I think they just wouldn't get their ward save if the prayer is successful.  If my Stank Commander prays to erase the ward of the HGBs successfully, then targets the Runefather, I think he still dumps his wounds onto the HGBs and they would not get their ward save.

They would not, correct, as the prayer removes the ward even if they’re not the target.

I think what Doko’s opponents are telling them, is that they don’t get the ward save at all whenever a bodyguard save is deflect a wound onto them.

[Doko]

9 minutes ago, Azamar said:

They would not, correct, as the prayer removes the ward even if they’re not the target.

I think what Doko’s opponents are telling them, is that they don’t get the ward save at all whenever a bodyguard save is deflect a wound onto them.

yup thats my problem.

i could explain that hgb have ward of bodyguarded wounds due to his retinue rule and the rule 1,6.

at this points everyone agree.

now the problem is the faq that says that negated wounds cant be saved by nothing even wards and these negated wounds done to bodyguards also cant be saved.

i explained that the retinue rule says that the wound is RELOCATED and not NEGATED but they tell me that is only semantic and the fact is that the wound is negated by the ruefather and so hgb cant use ward.

we dont play huge tournaments(only up to 12 players) and in general we only play single games where dont matter who win or losse,so i really i preffer dont get too much angry about this and let them think that they are rigth

[Gorthor21]

You are completely right Doko, it could just be the language barrier that is causing the confusion.  The Hearthguard rule explicitly states the ward can still be used after the wound is shunted off the character.  where the Blackguard only get a better ward and hand one to the sorcereress nowhere that I can find does it  say the black guard in particular can have the sorceress’ wounds shunted to them.  
 

So it seems the Fyreslayers have the better rule with the retinue mechanic but I’m sure the blackguard are what we can expect them to look like in the future to just do away with rules-bloat.

[ledha]

So, no reaction to the new fyreslayer warband ? These guys look incredibly good, by far our best models. I'm so happy to have a new unit to add some variety in my list !

[Gorthor21]

I really like the new two hand weapons guys, they look suitably menacing.  I’m glad they finally brought female Duardin out as well with the baby salamander 

[Lord Krungharr]

Eager to see how they might buff Magmadroths, and/or debuff or outright pound enemy monsters!  Definitely the coolest looking Duardin EVER I think.

[Doko]

i am not a fan of the female models of gw(they are more men than girl) and so i dont like these two female dwarfs.

but the minidroth is cute and the male models without the ass visible finally are great.

i hope they are playable

[Satyrical Sophist]

9 hours ago, Doko said:

i am not a fan of the female models of gw(they are more men than girl) and so i dont like these two female dwarfs.

but the minidroth is cute and the male models without the ass visible finally are great.

i hope they are playable

I think it's really good that female dwarfs look muscular and burly, I really don't like the world of warcraft approach where the males of a each species look distinct and the female version are just the human female with a slight colour change and maybe horns or cloven feet.

[Gorthor21]

I’m glad designers today are finally stepping away from the Werner knocked style dwarf females they have on reaper.  The women in this setting are often supposed to be life long warriors or survivoralists so being muscular only comes with that territory. 

[Azamar]

I’m very late noticing this so might be common knowledge to other fyreslayer players, but the core rules faq has been updated and conclusively answered the bodyguard debate above. Basically it works as it says on the runefather/son warscroll, overriding the core rules. 

[Clan's Cynic]

New Army of Renown in Dawnbringers III. Transport 'Droths!

Quote

The Lofnir Drothkeepers round things out, pairing Vulkyn Flameseekers with Magmadroths that embody the searing ardour of Vulcatrix – and especially bold Flameseekers can even hitch a ride on these flame-filled beasts as they charge into battle.

[Doko]

new rules here.

copy/paste of the review if you preffer skip the link

 

"this is not a good army to take. You’re not getting some sort of new meta Fyreslayer build out of this. It’s a different way to play with the army and if your main thing is playing matched play or anything even nearing competitive gaming then you won’t be using this."

 

https://www.goonhammer.com/dawnbringers-the-long-hunt-part-5-fyreslayers/

[Juicy]

What do you guys think of Fjori's Flamebearers?

Would it do something for me? I like the models and wondering if i can make use of this unit outside of the fyreslayers battletome.
For example play it with SCE or Cities of sigmar.

Initial thoughts are.

Hero good.

heartguard x5 useless
Berserkers x5 they want to be a unit of 10...
10 Vulkite good.

Special rules. Decent

 

 g

[Doko]

useless,fyreslayers units are overcosted by 25% because we have runes. if you use them as allys then they are ******.

the rules of this battallion are only against monsters,if you think gonna play against monsters try it.

 

in any case i would bring citis hammerers as allys allways before fyreslayers

[Doko]

today faq have fixed our warcry unit,those that dont know they can use all the buffs as  vulkites and hearthguards.

 

so rigth now before the incoming points changes in some days(that gonna reduce our points) the vulkyn flameseekers unit is our top unit.

have same damage per points than vulkites charging and more if they dont charge,and  same ratio wounds with save5 for points.BUT have range 2" that makes them superior.

against hearthguards again the vulkyns are better,first they have more models and attacks so they get more imcreases with buffs,also have around 20% more damage than hearthguards(but with 0 rend) and cost 15% less. and have same wounds per points that hearthguard but dont need a hero ww 6" that is umplayable and unfun.(hearthguards 10w save5 and 4++ that is the same than 20w save5,and vulkyns have 18w save5 for 30 less points)

have 4 bases with 28'5" so is hard to use vulkites and hearthguards as proxys but would be fun try a full list with only vulkyns

[ledha]

I played in a 26-persons tournament this week end, doing some test with the sylvaneth RoR in my army. Ending up with 1 win and 2 losses (the three with 27-16 scores, fun fact), victory against slaves to darkness (20 warriors, 10 chosens, 6 varanguards, 2 chariots, a nurgle demon prince and some mages), a loss against a LRL herohammer army (sevireth, hurrakhan avalenor, twins, eltharion, cathalar, 10 wardens and 2x5 knights) who won the tournament, and a loss against a kroaknado.

Anyone interested by a report ?